That ###### needs to go. I don't recall him being so much of a ########, but he certainly has just made us look bad and losing the All-Star game really pisses me off. I was actually looking forward to going to that with my boys.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Artists, businesses boycott North Carolina over anti-LGBT law (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
What really sucks is that Charlotte is getting punished for a state law. Again, to remind everyone, that HB2 crap was created because Charlotte signed a bill (no idea what it's called, local ordinance) saying that people could use any public bathroom they identified with and the idiots a few hours away decided to overrule it with HB2 and go further. Charlotte gets punished even though we did the "right" thing.
I think this is what Charlotte is being punished for (copied from the Charlotte website)
The bill didn't say the bathroom they identified with with. I think the compliant was that if I was at the All-Star game needing to take a dump and didn't want to wait in the men's bathroom line, I could just mosey into the women's bathroom. It also looks like it put an end to things like women's only fitness classes.
I didn't vote for McCrory after he and his democrat buddies defied the referendum results of the public on the stadium and built a stadium for millionaires and corporation to profit off of. Both sides screwed the pooch on this one.
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
By opening up bathrooms to everyone? The ultimate result of a society fearful of anything discriminatory.
Who cares? Public bathrooms are public bathrooms. I want the all star game, don't give a rat's ### about some old geezers who are worried that some guy in a dress might disturb their dump in a public bathroom.
bigbottom
Footballguy
The Charlotte ordinance did indeed exclude private clubs and private gyms (though gyms that are open to the public would indeed be covered by the ordinance).
The following does not qualify as a place of public accommodation under the ordinance:
Last edited by a moderator:
You pulled that from the FAQs. This is from the actual ordinance. I not sure which came first. I do know there was a big to do when this passed about the exceptions.
[SIZE=12pt]Section 3. Article III of Chapter 2 of the Charlotte City Code is amended as follows: “Sec. 12-58. - Prohibited acts. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt](a) It shall be unlawful to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt](b) It shall be unlawful to make, print, circulate, post, mail or otherwise cause to be published a statement, advertisement, or sign which indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied any person because of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin, or that any person's patronage of or presence at a place of public accommodation is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable because of race, color, religion or national origin; provided, however, this section does not apply to a private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public. [/SIZE]
(3) A private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public.” [/SIZE]
bigbottom
Footballguy
I'm not seeing the disconnect at all. The operative provision is subsection (a), which prohibits discrimination in "places of public accommodation" on the basis of gender identity and gender expression, among other prohibited bases. Private clubs and private gyms are not places of public accommodation.
Edit: Oh, I see what you're saying. Subsection (b) has the express carve-out and (a) doesn't. The argument would be that the carve-out would be unnecessary and superfluous if the referenced clubs were not included in the definition of "places of public accommodation." I can definitely see that argument from a statutory interpretation standpoint. You make a good point in that regard. But, as a general matter, "places of public accommodation" have traditionally not been defined legally to include private clubs. That's why Augusta doesn't violate federal law.
Edit: Oh, I see what you're saying. Subsection (b) has the express carve-out and (a) doesn't. The argument would be that the carve-out would be unnecessary and superfluous if the referenced clubs were not included in the definition of "places of public accommodation." I can definitely see that argument from a statutory interpretation standpoint. You make a good point in that regard. But, as a general matter, "places of public accommodation" have traditionally not been defined legally to include private clubs. That's why Augusta doesn't violate federal law.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
Well now I'm waffling back the other way. There is a definition in the Charlotte City Code for "places of public accommodation."
I don't think a private club would fall within that definition. And I'm guessing the non-discrimination ordinance hasn't been enforced against private clubs in the past for race-based restrictions, which have been part of the city's non-discrimination ordinance for years as I understand it.
Last edited by a moderator:
My understanding based on talk radio which can be misleading is that the carve was there and then removed (struck out). Regardless, it wasn't well written because the definition you posted in your second post that states goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are offered or made available to the public pretty much includes everything.
Then you have this which is just ripe for lawsuits or defeating the purpose of the law...
[SIZE=11pt]Pretty much the whole thing is a cluster ####. This really needs to be tackled at a federal level (I would say state but NC screwed that pouch) because if each city [/SIZE]writes[SIZE=11pt] there own laws about this the only people who will benefit are the [/SIZE]attorneys. We don't need 50 different lawsuits, we need one. [SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
Then you have this which is just ripe for lawsuits or defeating the purpose of the law...
[SIZE=11pt]Then they go on to say to call the police if someone is exposed in a locker room.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Pretty much the whole thing is a cluster ####. This really needs to be tackled at a federal level (I would say state but NC screwed that pouch) because if each city [/SIZE]writes[SIZE=11pt] there own laws about this the only people who will benefit are the [/SIZE]attorneys. We don't need 50 different lawsuits, we need one. [SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
bigbottom
Footballguy
Except places that aren't open/available to the public.
Definitely agree with you on the cluster#### assessment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
I agree in principle. The state overturning a fairly enacted, popularly supported municipal law was my greatest issue with this case.
But a higher government body overturning a municipal law is not unique to Conservatives. So if a state or federal entity overturning a fairly enacted, popularly supported municipal law is a major issue that warrants criticism then why don't we see a similar level of media and popular criticism when a Democrat state legislature or federal entity overturns a popularly supported, fairly implemented municipal law?
Or is that not hypocrisy under your above definition since Liberals don't profess to be against strong arming localities into thinking like them?
We'll use an example from the same state: https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/u-s-justice-department-spurns-kinston-decision-on-elections/
Last edited by a moderator:
Desert_Power
Footballguy
#### McCrory
Not much around here that isn't open/available to the public if you have some cash.
If I don't want a trans gendered using a particular bathroom accordingly to the FAQ I call the cops, tell them I thought they were non-transgendered, and file a trespassing compliant. Presto, I can't be sued for discrimination. On the flip side, how is the city going to determine what non-transgender is? Maybe I'm feeling a little feminine today. Are trans-genders going to have to get certified or licensed and carry around a card stating what gender they identify with?
Short of society changing to accept all of us walking around naked and having uni-sex everything I don't see an answer that accommodates everyone fully.
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
What's your cut-off line for the percentage of the population a group must be and the amount of information-based conclusions you must have on that group before that group should get full "access to rights, privileges, and protections under the law"?
You referenced blacks, gays and trannies. Actually, you mentioned gays/bi's, but most people think gays when dealing with those issues because those issues are almost exclusively talked about as gay rights, not bi rights.
Anyway, blacks are about 13% of the population. Gays are about 4% of the population. And Trannies are less than 1% of the pop.
So gays are much closer to trannies than blacks percentage-wise, but you suggest gays made the percent cut-off to have access to rights. Where exactly is the cut-off?
And do we really have more "information-based conclusions" on what makes someone gay as opposed to a trannie?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx
Last edited by a moderator:
I always wondered why it became LGBT in the first place. I don't think most L/G have an issue identifying with a personal gender. Seems like they have their own unique equality issues/struggles just like Muslins or handicapped individuals.
Koya
Footballguy
My point here is that Conservatives claim to want for more limited gov't, and more local control (i.e States Rights vs. Federal Powers), by and large. As such, it rings all that much more hollow, if not flat out false, when you here a 'Conservative' look for the larger, central gov't to overtake the rights of the smaller/more local.
First of all, this wasn't a popularly supported municipal law. Furthermore, it was so poorly written as discussed above that it was prime for numerous lawsuits by both sides. When it comes to things like gun laws, bathroom rights, motorcycle helmet laws, and other issues that impact you daily and you move about your business, they need to be uniform across a state. The more local control is good when your talking about stationary things like schools, roads where you have posted speed limit signs, building requirements/zoning.
Koya
Footballguy
Well, how convenient.
FWIW, New York City has specific fire arms laws that are quite stricter than those state wide, and works just fine. Oh, and while not helmet laws, there are a number of traffic laws that differ between say, NYC and even adjacent counties.
Oh, and didn't realize that my going to the bathroom happened in a manner that could begin in one municipality and end in another.
Seriously, it just smells of finding an excuse for a law that you want imposed from above, clearly against the wishes and desires of the local community and jurisdiction - and a rather large one, at that.
What about people simply having the courage to let others be as free as they wish themselves to be? Freedom is a responsibility, and by definition means we must accept that others may be able to do things we don't personally like, agree with, feel comfortable with. Why can't people just have the courage to enable others to share in the same freedoms they have, realizing that it may not always be the "easiest" route, but in the end, it is that very courage to allow others to be free that let's ourselves be the same.
Actually I think if this is an important discrimination issue, it should be handled at a federal level. The act of going to the bathroom isn't a local issue. Obviously this is a complicated issue and it's going to take some people really good at writing legislation to keep the end result out of the courts.
Regarding your comment about others wishing to be free, this law would have eliminated the ability of a business to have a female only yoga classes.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It's hard for me to imagine a less interstate act than taking a piss.BassNBrew said:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
So you have not pissed on the four corners marker?
Code:
Most of it runs into Arizona.
rockaction
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Totally not worth it. Your time would be better spent viewing the world's largest ball of twine, Wall Drug, the statue of Babe the blue ox.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Now pissing on the Blarney Stone and then going back in the daytime to watch folks kiss it is a bit of a giggle as is leaving dried, non-hallucinogenic shrooms on Jim Morrison's headstone and watching kids grab them up like they are gold.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The unquestionably hottest woman I've ever had the pleasure of defiling was originally from Bemidji. She flew home to visit and I surprised her by flying up for a weekend. She'd apparently always wanted to engage in coitus at her town's top roadside attraction. Afterwards, I couldn't pass up the chance.
-fish-
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Wow! I have the exact same story, except I drove up from Madison. On the way back down, she came with me, we swung through Hayward Wisconsin and did it under the World's largest Muskie.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Probably a con woman pretending from being all over
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Very impressive, still knowing her middle name. Not sure I ever knew mine's middle name.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I might take a leak in 4 or 5 different cities each day where I'll usually only be building a home or going to school in one fixed location each day. IMO some things are better handled at a state if not federal level so that there's consistency in our daily travels. Also seems easier for one law to vetted in the courts rather than multiple similar laws for numerous cities.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Some of us need a bullets point list in layman's terms please...do I have any of this right?
-Locals in NC pass a bill to clarify who gets to use what restroom, no matter your personal beliefs they came up with what they felt was just and it was somewhat popular with locals?
-Pressure mounts from big business and corporations dealing with this in their companies on a more national level.
-Some overriding Liberal body of government overturned the newly enacted laws and deemed them unjust I'm assuming?
Is that where we are?
-Locals in NC pass a bill to clarify who gets to use what restroom, no matter your personal beliefs they came up with what they felt was just and it was somewhat popular with locals?
-Pressure mounts from big business and corporations dealing with this in their companies on a more national level.
-Some overriding Liberal body of government overturned the newly enacted laws and deemed them unjust I'm assuming?
Is that where we are?
bigbottom
Footballguy
Foosball God
Foos
Good ol Wall Drug. I can't imagine what their signage cost must be. "100 miles to Wall Drug"... "99 miles to Wall Drug"... "98 miles to Wall Drug"...
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Can you explain it a little? I want to understand what is happening there. Is it local government being overridden by Federal? You said it's the opposite.